Sorry about that, I meant subjective.

Harmony among the majority? Or harmony among everybody? — chatterbears

Harmony/disharmony between the interacting parties.

Here's a link to my personal opinions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/236145

No apology needed, I was just interested in hearing how that might work! Lol

I think I got you confused with somebody else. I sometimes lose track of who I am talking to, as I didn't realize you were also Vegan.

Nonetheless, I still am not clear what you mean by harmony. So when you say, "between the interacting parties", you are referring to the slave and the slave owner, correct? Not, the slave owner and other slave owners.

Nonetheless, I still am not clear what you mean by harmony. So when you say, "between the interacting parties", you are referring to the slave and the slave owner, correct? Not, the slave owner and other slave owners. — chatterbears

Yes. Unfortunately, ethical/moral guidelines depend on the level of intelligence of the participants involved. What I mean is that, for slavery to come to an end, both parties (the slave owners and the slaves) had to realise what was wrong with their interactions. This is because, back then, just as now, there are those who readily accept the circumstances they're in without the proper forethought. This often results in people being okay with inequality, such that, there's appearance of harmony while the disharmony is masked in ignorance.

In the case of ignorance, ethics/morality should not be the foremost query, rather how the relevant information should be acquired. I think such is the case with the relation between humans and animals, or more specifically, the determination of the equality of animals.

Again, how would you respond to your daughter/friend/family member who has just been raped. Would you be supportive? — chatterbears

Of course.

Or would you say "if he felt right in his action to rape you, that's just his interpersonal behaviors."

"That's just the way he feels about interpersonal behavior." That's certainly true, but my feeling about it wouldn't be based on the rapist's feeling about it. My feeling about it is my own disposition, a factor of how my brain works, etc.

What I am trying to get at here, is you must have some sort of mechanism you use to differentiate a good action from a bad action. — chatterbears

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not.

You may (or may not) believe rape is a bad action, because of Reason A. — chatterbears

Once again, if it's "because of reason A," reason A would have to itself be a moral stance, because moral stances are not derivable from anything that's not a moral stance. I wouldn't say that "rape is bad" is based on another, more foundational, moral stance for me.

Re "I feel it is wrong to cause harm to others," once again, I don't use any sort of overarching principle approach to ethics, and I certainly don't endorse any general proscriptions of "harm," because that's too broad/vague in my view.

Ethics/morality is relative. — BrianW

Yes. I'd say it's relative to individuals (as well as cultures re statistical cultural norms).

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not. — Terrapin Station

Not everyone uses that mechanism for “the behaviour in question”. One could adhere to a principal that they dont particularly feel like adhering to at this time but do so out of a dedication to their principals in general. Yes, you will argue that the “feelings” are still the basis for the dedication to the principal in the first place, but that isnt the same thing as their feelings on each behaviour/morals.

Yes. Unfortunately, ethical/moral guidelines depend on the level of intelligence of the participants involved. What I mean is that, for slavery to come to an end, both parties (the slave owners and the slaves) had to realise what was wrong with their interactions. This is because, back then, just as now, there are those who readily accept the circumstances they're in without the proper forethought. This often results in people being okay with inequality, such that, there's appearance of harmony while the disharmony is masked in ignorance.

In the case of ignorance, ethics/morality should not be the foremost query, rather how the relevant information should be acquired. I think such is the case with the relation between humans and animals, or more specifically, the determination of the equality of animals. — BrianW

I assume you apply the same logic to mentally disabled people, who have the same intelligence level as animals. (depending on how far they are on the spectrum).

So what if a person is groomed to believe something, or indoctrinated. Women who claim they have choices in societies like the middle east, but more enlightened women know this is not the case. Do you apply the same logic to those people?

Yeah, I mean re how they feel about foundational ethical stances, and then they can reason on top of that, etc.--I'm just not going to spell all of that out every time I mention it.

I assume you apply the same logic to mentally disabled people, who have the same intelligence level as animals. (depending on how far they are on the spectrum). — chatterbears

I already think that the idea of human intelligence quantification is dubious, forget about intelligence quantification for other animals.

Of course. — Terrapin Station

Why would you support a rape victim?

"That's just the way he feels about interpersonal behavior." That's certainly true, but my feeling about it wouldn't be based on the rapist's feeling about it. My feeling about it is my own disposition, a factor of how my brain works, etc. — Terrapin Station

And what is your own disposition about rape?

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not. — Terrapin Station

You are again, going all the way down to the metaethical perspective. Yes, at the core of their belief, it is how they "feel" about it. But when they are putting normative and applied ethics into play, it is not a matter of how they "feel". Someone could base their actions on utilitarianism or consequentialism. This is separate from how they feel.

Level 2: I base my actions on consequentialism.
Level 1: I believe consequentialism is good.

You keep going down to the base level (level 1) when discussing these issues. I want to know what your Level 2 reasoning is. And if you say you don't have one, then maybe you need to read a bit more about ethics and the 3 tiers of an ethical system (metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics)

Once again, if it's "because of reason A," reason A would have to itself be a moral stance, because moral stances are not derivable from anything that's not a moral stance. I wouldn't say that "rape is bad" is based on another, more foundational, moral stance for me.

Re "I feel it is wrong to cause harm to others," once again, I don't use any sort of overarching principle approach to ethics, and I certainly don't endorse any general proscriptions of "harm," because that's too broad/vague in my view. — Terrapin Station

You don't need an overarching principle to explain your normative ethical standpoint. It doesn't have to be a broad term such as consequentialism. But clearly you still have an idea in your head that governs your ability to discern right from wrong. And I want to know what that is, without you describing metaethics.

Maybe this question will clear up the rest of the discussion between you and I. Are you claiming that you do not hold any stance within normative or applied ethics? If so, then it seems clear that your ethical system is vastly incomplete.

Yes, you will argue that the “feelings” are still the basis for the dedication to the principal in the first place, but that isnt the same thing as their feelings on each behaviour/morals. — DingoJones

This is the point I have been trying to address with Terrapin for a while now. He seems to be only addressing ethics from a meta perspective, without even acknowledging the normative or applied ethical realm, which is also very important and does in fact matter.

Doesn't matter. If I created an artificial vagina that men could buy to deter them from raping women, would you accept their reasoning if they told you, "But this artificial vagina doesn't feel like the real thing. Therefore, I will go back to raping women." — chatterbears

This is silly. But I understand your focus better now. You're not really interested in animals, but in ethics. Which your thread title does disclose, so the confusion was mine.

If you were interested in animals you'd get that fake meat products which aren't appealing to meat eaters are not advancing the cause of animal rights.

I didnt suggest you should, just that you shouldnt make an erroneous claim about the mechanism “everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not”. The fact that reason can be at play rather than someone's feelings in a specific moral case/behaviour is a direct contradiction to the case by case claims you make any time you are “discussing” morality on this forum (in my observation anyway, im still relatively new).

This is the point I have been trying to address with Terrapin for a while now. He seems to be only addressing ethics from a meta perspective, without even acknowledging the normative or applied ethical realm, which is also very important and does in fact matter. — chatterbears

It isnt very important to him, nor does it in fact matter to him. His moral views preclude your inclusion of them, and your attempts to hold him (or anyone else with such views) to those standards are doomed to fail. Im not sure why you fail to understand this considering you have admitted a subjective basis for morality already. His subjective basis is different than yours, and his measures are therefore different as well.

Why would you support a rape victim? — chatterbears

Because I'm morally against rape. That's a foundational stance for me. Not a stance built on another moral stance.

You keep going down to the base level (level 1) when discussing these issues . . And if you say you don't have one, then maybe you need to read a bit more about ethics and the 3 tiers of an ethical system (metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics) . . . But clearly you still have an idea in your head that governs your ability to discern right from wrong. . — chatterbears

What you're looking for re "an idea in your head that governs your ability to discern right from wrong" is some sort of overarching principle, a la "it is wrong to hurt others" or "it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering." That's not the way I approach ethics. I don't think those sorts of approaches are a good idea.

Re normative ethics, Encyclopedia Britannica, says, for example, "The central question of normative ethics is determining how basic moral standards are arrived at and justified."

The way that basic moral standards are arrived at is what I keep explaining, and as I noted earlier, I consider justification a category error, basically (at least justification in anything like the conventional epistemological sense of that term).

Re the deontological/teleological (consequentialist)/virtue distinction, I probably usually lean towards teleological stances, but I wouldn't say that I necessarily do--again, dedication to any principle is a misguided approach in my opinion.

And of course re applied ethics, I have many stances, such as "Rape is wrong."

I didnt suggest you should, just that you shouldnt make an erroneous claim about the mechanism “everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not”. — DingoJones

It's not at all erroneous, though. That's the foundational approach everyone uses. I'm just not spelling out the full details via a couple paragraphs or so everytime I mention it, because that would be ridiculously laborious.

I understand that feelings are at the root of morality and ethics, I think we agree there. That doesnt mean feelings inform all instances of morality though, that is what I think is erroneous. The implication of what you said is that someone couldnt be relying on logic and reason to take moral stances on a specific instance, which doesnt directly follow from the “feelings” foundation.

Could you give an example?

I assume you apply the same logic to mentally disabled people, who have the same intelligence level as animals. (depending on how far they are on the spectrum). — chatterbears

Yes. In terms of their expectations, perspectives, actions and reactions.

So what if a person is groomed to believe something, or indoctrinated. Women who claim they have choices in societies like the middle east, but more enlightened women know this is not the case. Do you apply the same logic to those people? — chatterbears

Yes. For example, to some people, sex between unmarried consenting adults, in their own privacy, is unethical/immoral while for others it's okay.

There seems to be too much relativity and subjectivity in ethics and morality. I think with time the rules of conduct will converge the more society interacts globally and comprehensively

Im not sure I understand, you want an example of a moral instance? Why would you need a specific example? It applies to all moral instances...well potentially, obviously someone like you yourself uses feelings in each instance. Not everyone has to in order to be consistent with your/our premiss of feelings being the foundation of morality. Reason and logic alone can inform those instances.

An example of relying on logic and reason to take a moral stance not directly following from the “feelings” foundation. An example of a moral stance that uses reason and logic alone.

When they reference a moral code rather than their feelings. Yes, the code has its basis in feelings essentially but thats not necessarily whats directly being referenced in the specific instance.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other then. You're not saying that any stance doesn't ultimately rest on moral intuitions/feelings, and I'm not saying that every stance is necessarily foundational and not logically derived from a foundational stance instead.

Well when you said “how I feel about the behavior in question.” I took that to be your feeling in the moment, rather than your feeling when you decide the foundations of your ethics.

Well when you said “how I feel about the behavior in question.” I took that to be your feeling in the moment, rather than your feeling when you decide the foundations of your ethics. — DingoJones

Right. I fully recognize that someone might have something like "It is wrong to initiate nonconsensual violence" as a foundational moral stance, and then they might say, "Murder is the initiation of nonconsensual violence Therefore it is wrong to murder" on top of that, where they're reaching "It is wrong to murder" as a logical/rational extension or implication of their foundational stance.

By stressing that it's a matter of how one feels about interpersonal behavior (that people consider more significant than etiquette, to spell out another aspect that I don't usually bother spelling out), I'm stressing that any moral stance is going to come down to some feeling-based foundational stance (such as "It is wrong to initiate nonconsensual violence" in this case).

Since I'm not personally fond of principle-oriented approaches, a lot of "applied" stances for me are effectively foundational, by which I simply mean that there are no other moral stances that the "applied" stance in question rests on (as with the example above re a moral stance against murder).

Ok, I understand the way YOU view those instances but that isnt what you said, you said “everyone” whether they “realize/admit it or not”. I think you can say that about morality being based on some kind of subjectivity/feelings, but it is erroneous to apply that to everyone in all moral instances. As we just discussed, some people are not actually doing that.
It is a substantive distinction there, and people will have trouble with your stances if you do not make it even if they can’t articulate why.
Anyway, I don’t suppose your all that interested and I DID just sorta butt in on a discussion you were having so unless you think Ive made annerror in my assessment Ill go back to observing.

Ok, I understand the way YOU view those instances but that isnt what you said, you said “everyone” whether they “realize/admit it or not”. I think you can say that about morality being based on some kind of subjectivity/feelings, but it is erroneous to apply that to everyone in all moral instances. As we just discussed, some people are not actually doing that. — DingoJones

Again, I think that people are always doing this with respect to foundational moral stances, and I think there have to be foundational moral stances. (Though it's important to keep in mind that what's foundational for an individual is dynamic, and can vary per situation.) Do you not agree with that?

Ya, I agree.